TaiidanTomcat Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 So we also have a critical need to upgrade all of our neglected strategic systems? Glad money is still free flowing, that sounds terribly expensive. Someone spit in your clam chowder or something? There is a backup to decommission nuclear warheads but do you really think that the cost to scrap the entire ICBM force outweighs the savings? Plus it's only a matter of time before one of those poor "Missileers" goes postal. We'd be doing them all a favor. That would not only take out one of the elements of the triad, but last I heard the new SAC will have only about 10 assigned bombers. The US has very very few strategic bombers and they have other commitments. I don't expect the ICBMs to go anywhere until you have the LRS-B up and in numbers. That would put it all on Submarines. maybe Parche can tell us more. S Korea is the new Germany but the problem is that you can't fit a full US Army corps over there (and even if you could, the South Koreans would not want them). Plus, as I noted, a good portion of the country is not exactly ideal mech terrain. REFORSKOR '15 So maybe it is time to drastically cut the Army. One has to give credit where it is due. The Marines are much more savy and will never be subject to truly deep cuts, despite the fact that many believe their amphibious mission to be obsolete. The cold war is over, Afghanistan will thankfully be done in the near future and it seems like the Army has just now realized that their "core competencies" don't seem to have much relevance post-2014. The army still has a mission. the need for the big heavyweight slugger is still there. they trained for years to fight the USSR, but the dividends from that went to other missions. Its not a waste of time or effort to train for the big dog, and then have to take on a smaller dog along the way. Don't assume that a war with China would play out just like WWII pacific 2.0. May end up looking closer to WWII europe, (amphib assaults with year long land campaigns) in which case the Army has serious homework. Post Vietnam the Army really got back to its original post WWII mission, which was WWIII. It was "helped" with a pretty hesitant political body, and a war weary population. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
82Whitey51 Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 :touche:/> :deadhorse1:/> :deadhorse1:/> :709-457:/> :action-smiley-081:/> Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 :touche:/>/> :deadhorse1:/>/> :deadhorse1:/>/> :709-457:/>/> :action-smiley-081:/>/> :explode:/> Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ruud Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 http://www.cbsnews.com/news/f-35-joint-strike-fighter-60-minutes/ a fun read. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 http://www.cbsnews.com/news/f-35-joint-strike-fighter-60-minutes/ a fun read. I don't know about the F-35, but whatever we spent educating the commenters over there was money wasted. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SkyKing918 Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 The F-35 story is proof of the adages that (1) the best is the enemy of good enough, and (2) you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 The F-35 story is proof of the adages that (1) the best is the enemy of good enough, and (2) you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. could you elaborate more? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
82Whitey51 Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 (edited) Ahhhggg....what's 7 years and 163 Billion over budget??? No big deal...c'mon. I love that opening meeting...jesus, how many more folks can we cram in here??? A valve installed backwards... :coolio:/> Edited February 18, 2014 by 82Whitey51 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Ahhhggg....what's 7 years and 163 Billion over budget??? No big deal...c'mon. I love that opening meeting...jesus, how many more folks can we cram in here??? A valve installed backwards... :coolio:/>/> It almost felt like that whole scene was just a fabricated PR exercise to demonstrate to the taxpayers how "tough" Bogdan is on his contractor. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 (edited) It almost felt like that whole scene was just a fabricated PR exercise to demonstrate to the taxpayers how "tough" Bogdan is on his contractor. Sure was nice of 60 minutes to play along like they did ... hey thats how that colonel "knew" what Bogdan was going to say!! We're through the looking glass here people... Edited February 18, 2014 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
82Whitey51 Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 Sure was nice of 60 minutes to play along like they did ... hey thats how that colonel "knew" what Bogdan was going to say!! We're through the looking glass here people... Tai, do you work on the F-35 program there in TX? I'm guessing you do. I'm a fan of it, mostly because it employs a lot of people I know...has and will for a seemingly long time. Sitting in the VFW after work here in the Pax River area, you get a real good grunts eye view into the program...and the pot of money is growing pretty large on the date the "C" model makes a trap. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted February 19, 2014 Author Share Posted February 19, 2014 It almost felt like that whole scene was just a fabricated PR exercise to demonstrate to the taxpayers how "tough" Bogdan is on his contractor. It was a pretty accurate representation of day to day business. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fulcrum1 Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 So maybe it is time to drastically cut the Army. One has to give credit where it is due. The Marines are much more savy and will never be subject to truly deep cuts, despite the fact that many believe their amphibious mission to be obsolete. The cold war is over, Afghanistan will thankfully be done in the near future and it seems like the Army has just now realized that their "core competencies" don't seem to have much relevance post-2014. It's coming, winter is here in the Army. We're about to see the smallest active duty Army since before WWII and the smallest Corps since 1950. The Corps amphibious operations is more relevant than ever. Just in the past two decades they were used over a hundred times and are expected to be used at a higher rate in years to come which is why the push happened a few years ago to reorganize their force structure. The Army's two core competencies is to train and equip soldiers/grow leaders and provide the bosses with a ground combat force. What I think you're trying to say is what does a post 2014 Army look like? I say one that can fight irregular warfare and on a linear battlefield, either way, one that is refitted, trained, and ready to roll. Where will we do our fighting? I don't know, my guess is somewhere we didn't expect. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Sure was nice of 60 minutes to play along like they did ... hey thats how that colonel "knew" what Bogdan was going to say!! We're through the looking glass here people... IMO, 60 Minutes got played by LM and the military. Toss some softball questions, don't question any of the answers, sit in the jet and play with the fancy helmet, etc. Not exactly cutting-edge investigative journalism, but then again, 60 Minutes hasn't been relevant in ages. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
82Whitey51 Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 IMO, 60 Minutes got played by LM and the military. Toss some softball questions, don't question any of the answers, sit in the jet and play with the fancy helmet, etc. Not exactly cutting-edge investigative journalism, but then again, 60 Minutes hasn't been relevant in ages. True enough. They didn't even bother questioning the whole how/why some valve got installed backwards that was handed to them on a platter. Never mind that the hook on the "C" is too short, that's a major deal, we either redesign our carriers or redesign the airplane. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Fellow Hobbyist Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 And redesign the tailhook LM has. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Crazy Snap Captain Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Jeez... You wouldn't think a tail hook would be such a complex thing to get right considering the multitude of experience over the years. I'm assuming the fact that it needs to be "stealthy" is the reason for the complications? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkW Posted February 20, 2014 Author Share Posted February 20, 2014 How's about the fact that (for the umpteenth time, BTW) that all the NAVAIR people who did the last Tailhook design for the F/A-18A are retired or dead along time ago? The Superbug and all later versions of the Hornet simply copied a design that worked, there was little to no analysis done in those designs. The last of that "multitude of experience" was gained in the 1970s! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Crazy Snap Captain Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) How's about the fact that (for the umpteenth time, BTW) that all the NAVAIR people who did the last Tailhook design for the F/A-18A are retired or dead along time ago? The Superbug and all later versions of the Hornet simply copied a design that worked, there was little to no analysis done in those designs. The last of that "multitude of experience" was gained in the 1970s! Errr...did their blueprints die as well? Come on! <_< That's a pretty lame excuse. See above underlined text. Edited February 20, 2014 by Crazy Snap Captain Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Maybe the F 35 design doesn't lend itself well to carrier operations. -Gregg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) Errr...did their blueprints die as well? Come on! <_</>/> That's a pretty lame excuse. See above underlined text. The blueprints sure didn't!! Luckily NAVAIR still had all the numbers, that they then gave to lockheed. Then... wait for it... The numbers were wrong. Unfortunately lockheed had already followed them. The same thing happened to the X-47 why? well because it followed the same bad numbers given by the navy. I'm assuming the fact that it needs to be "stealthy" is the reason for the complications? That would be a poor assumption. the Tail hook itself is unstealthy it hides in its own compartment: Edited February 20, 2014 by TaiidanTomcat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 And redesign the tailhook LM has. Out of curiosity, who's paying for the redesign and all the additional testing required to validate it? LM or the US taxpayer? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Out of curiosity, who's paying for the redesign and all the additional testing required to validate it? LM or the US taxpayer? You mean who is paying for the Navy's screw up? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 You mean who is paying for the Navy's screw up? You didn't answer the question TT. Who's paying? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 You didn't answer the question TT. Who's paying? I think I did actually. The navy supplied bad info that cost both the X-47 and F-35C... think about it. Who do you think is paying to fix their own error? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.